CBB Matchups
Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.
College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.
Non-conferenceNeutral siteBaha Mar Convention Center, Nassau, BahamasBaha Mar Championship
Wisconsin
Efficiency #28
2025-26: 24-11 · 16-7 conf
vs
Seton Hall
Efficiency #56
2025-26: 21-12 · 11-11 conf
Thu, Nov 19 · 8:30 PM ET
74.0
win 60%
Projected
71.0
win 40%
No line posted yet.
Model: WIS −3.0 · total 145.0 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.
How the projection is built
each step, from an average D-I game to this oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Seton Hall 66.9, Wisconsin 69.2 → 67.8 possessions
−1.2
Seton Hall offense vs Wisconsin defense
−2.5
Wisconsin offense vs Seton Hall defense
+0.5
Projected total
145.0
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Seton Hall offense vs Wisconsin defense
−2.5
Wisconsin offense vs Seton Hall defense
−0.5
Wisconsin by 3.0
3.0
Wisconsin side ◂▸ Seton Hall side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Seton Hall.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Wisconsin is the faster team (69.0, #151 of 365) and Seton Hall the slower (66.5, #273). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
145.0
model
Projected team totals
74.0 / 71.0
Wisconsin / Seton Hall
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.2#107
Wisconsin
66.9#298
Seton Hall
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetDefenseSeton Hall
Seton Hall's shot-blocking
Seton Hall ranks #1 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 17.0% of Wisconsin's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageSeton Hall
Where Seton Hall struggles: shooting
Seton Hall shoots an effective 47.6% (#321); Wisconsin allows 51.4% (#178). Expect about 49.2%, 2.1 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions.
ClashWisconsin
Style match: ball movement
Wisconsin assists on 57.3% of its made baskets; Seton Hall allows assists on 58.3% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 59.4% — both habits push the same way.
TurnoversSeton Hall
Seton Hall protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.1% is worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions for Seton Hall's offense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Seton Hall, Wisconsin) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect Wisconsin at about 51.3% of its shots from three, Seton Hall about 30.1%.
ClashWisconsin
Strength vs strength: live-ball turnovers
Wisconsin (#1 in live-ball turnovers) against Seton Hall (#4 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 11.1%. Historically Seton Hall's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.40 vs 0.65).
Wisconsin has the ball
OffenseSeton Hall allowsvs D1 avg
54.5% #52
47.3% #25
-0.3 pt/100
12.8% #4
21.5% #5
-0.9 pt/100
29.1% #232
31.9% #251
-0.1 pt/100
31.5% #267
42.1% #325
+0.3 pt/100
78.8% #6
—
+0.6 pt/100
Wisconsin net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.4 pts/100
Seton Hall has the ball
OffenseWisconsin allowsvs D1 avg
47.6% #321
51.4% #178
-2.9 pt/100
16.7% #175
14.3% #328
+2.0 pt/100
35.6% #33
28.2% #74
+1.6 pt/100
35.3% #168
29.8% #56
-0.4 pt/100
72.3% #199
—
-0.0 pt/100
Seton Hall net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersWisconsinoffense vsSeton Halldefense
Share of shots by zone
Wisconsin shoots
33.3
6.0
9.1
51.6
Seton Hall allows
39.7
3.7
14.7
41.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.8%#99 | 52.7%#22 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 47.7%#27 | 29.3%#13 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.6%#126 | 32.6%#22 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.2%#50 | 32.4%#87 | 33.7% |
Seton Halloffense vsWisconsindefense
Share of shots by zone
Seton Hall shoots
46.7
5.3
21.8
26.2
Wisconsin allows
34.2
7.5
18.0
40.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 54.5%#314 | 58.9%#187 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.7%#311 | 47.1%#333 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.9%#146 | 41.4%#286 | 38.0% |
| Three | 30.5%#334 | 33.4%#151 | 33.7% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbersWisconsin
+1.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#108 of 365
Off reb %
29.1%
#232
Def reb %
71.8%
#74
Turnover %
12.8%
#4
Forced TO %
14.3%
#328
FT rate
31.5%
#267
FT allowed
29.8%
#56
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security+2.7
Forcing turnovers−1.7
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed+1.4
Seton Hall
+2.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#56 of 365
Off reb %
35.6%
#33
Def reb %
68.1%
#251
Turnover %
16.7%
#175
Forced TO %
21.5%
#5
FT rate
35.3%
#168
FT allowed
42.1%
#325
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.7
Defensive rebounding−0.4
Ball security+0.1
Forcing turnovers+3.3
Foul shots drawn+0.1
Foul shots allowed−1.8
Seton Hall has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.9 (#56 of 365) to Wisconsin’s +1.9 (#108).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Wisconsin2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | Nolan Winter | F | Jr | 7'0" | 31-30 | 30.7 | 13.1 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 62.6% | 32.6% | 3.1 | 74.2% | 20.5% | |
| 7 | Andrew Rohde | G | Sr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 26.5 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 47.8% | 31.8% | 3.9 | 77.8% | 15.0% | |
| 32 | Aleksas Bieliauskas | F | Fr | 6'10" | 35-28 | 20.1 | 4.9 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 52.8% | 34.6% | 2.3 | 63.3% | 15.4% | |
| 22 | Austin Rapp | F | So | 6'10" | 30-12 | 23.2 | 9.7 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 54.6% | 36.3% | 5.3 | 85.4% | 22.9% | |
| 0 | Braeden Carrington | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-0 | 18.0 | 8.3 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 57.5% | 40.1% | 5.1 | 77.2% | 23.9% | |
| 5 | Jack Janicki | G | So | 6'5" | 26-1 | 16.5 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 42.3% | 27.7% | 1.8 | 60.0% | 11.0% | |
| 23 | Will Garlock | F | Fr | 7'0" | 30-0 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 72.2% | — | 0.0 | 40.0% | 10.3% | |
| 13 | Hayden Jones | G | Fr | 6'6" | 27-1 | 7.2 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 63.5% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 54.5% | 15.2% | |
| 4 | Zach Kinziger | G | Fr | 6'3" | 14-0 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 40.0% | 25.0% | 1.1 | 50.0% | 20.1% | |
| 11 | Jack Robison | F | So | 6'6" | 16-0 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 93.8% | 75.0% | 0.3 | 66.7% | 23.7% | |
| 18 | Riccardo Greppi | F | So | 6'10" | 14-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 0.0% | 28.3% | |
| 15 | Isaac Gard | G | Sr | 6'3" | 14-0 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 64.3% | 50.0% | 0.4 | 100.0% | 35.1% | |
| 6 | Elijah Gray | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Seton Hall2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Adam Clark | G | Jr | 5'10" | 33-33 | 30.7 | 12.7 | 3.0 | 4.9 | 2.6 | 45.0% | 22.0% | 1.2 | 74.6% | 30.0% | |
| 14 | AJ Staton-McCray | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-33 | 27.5 | 11.8 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 47.7% | 33.3% | 4.9 | 87.5% | 27.9% | |
| 23 | Mike Williams | G | Jr | 6'3" | 33-31 | 20.9 | 7.0 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 44.8% | 33.7% | 3.0 | 75.9% | 23.8% | |
| 22 | Elijah Fisher | G | Sr | 6'6" | 33-33 | 20.7 | 6.6 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 48.0% | 23.7% | 1.2 | 69.6% | 20.6% | |
| 6 | Stephon Payne | F | Sr | 6'9" | 33-33 | 20.2 | 5.9 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 52.4% | — | 0.0 | 51.8% | 18.7% | |
| 25 | Najai Hines | F | Fr | 6'10" | 31-0 | 17.9 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 60.2% | — | 0.0 | 69.0% | 20.1% | |
| 13 | Trey Parker | G | So | 6'0" | 32-0 | 15.5 | 4.3 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 39.2% | 20.5% | 1.4 | 80.0% | 22.7% | |
| 7 | Josh Rivera | F | Sr | 6'6" | 30-0 | 11.7 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.2 | 53.6% | 18.5% | |
| 1 | Jacob Dar | G | Sr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 10.4 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 51.3% | 19.0% | 0.7 | 76.9% | 19.1% | |
| 54 | Godswill Erheriene | C | So | 6'9" | 10-0 | 4.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 60.0% | — | 0.0 | 66.7% | 15.0% | |
| 15 | Jahseem Felton | G | So | 6'5" | 3-0 | 14.0 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 12.5% | 0.0% | 1.3 | 75.0% | 16.2% | |
| 35 | Assane Mbaye | C | So | 7'2" | 4-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 15.2% | |
| 41 | David Gabriel | G | Sr | 6'1" | 3-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 41.4% | |
| 9 | Patrick Suemnick | F | Sr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Wisconsin2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | Nolan Winter | F | Jr | 7'0" | 31-30 | 30.7 | 13.1 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 62.6% | 32.6% | 3.1 | 74.2% | 20.5% | |
| 7 | Andrew Rohde | G | Sr | 6'6" | 34-34 | 26.5 | 5.7 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 47.8% | 31.8% | 3.9 | 77.8% | 15.0% | |
| 32 | Aleksas Bieliauskas | F | Fr | 6'10" | 35-28 | 20.1 | 4.9 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 52.8% | 34.6% | 2.3 | 63.3% | 15.4% | |
| 22 | Austin Rapp | F | So | 6'10" | 30-12 | 23.2 | 9.7 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 54.6% | 36.3% | 5.3 | 85.4% | 22.9% | |
| 0 | Braeden Carrington | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-0 | 18.0 | 8.3 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 57.5% | 40.1% | 5.1 | 77.2% | 23.9% | |
| 5 | Jack Janicki | G | So | 6'5" | 26-1 | 16.5 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 42.3% | 27.7% | 1.8 | 60.0% | 11.0% | |
| 23 | Will Garlock | F | Fr | 7'0" | 30-0 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 72.2% | — | 0.0 | 40.0% | 10.3% | |
| 13 | Hayden Jones | G | Fr | 6'6" | 27-1 | 7.2 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 63.5% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 54.5% | 15.2% | |
| 4 | Zach Kinziger | G | Fr | 6'3" | 14-0 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 40.0% | 25.0% | 1.1 | 50.0% | 20.1% | |
| 11 | Jack Robison | F | So | 6'6" | 16-0 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 93.8% | 75.0% | 0.3 | 66.7% | 23.7% | |
| 18 | Riccardo Greppi | F | So | 6'10" | 14-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 0.0% | 28.3% | |
| 15 | Isaac Gard | G | Sr | 6'3" | 14-0 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 64.3% | 50.0% | 0.4 | 100.0% | 35.1% | |
| 6 | Elijah Gray | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Wisconsin
Against the spread
Season
20-14-1
Home
10-6-1
Road
7-4
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +2.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
22-13
Home
10-7
Road
8-3
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +3.1
Over in the last gameOver in 5 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19 | #12High Point | N | L 82–83 | −10.0 | L−11.0 | 161.5 | O165 | 112.3 | 113.7 | 73.0 |
| Mar 14 | #3Michigan | N | L 65–68 | +12.5 | W+9.5 | 161.5 | U133 | 96.2 | 100.7 | 67.5 |
| Mar 13 | #9Illinois | N | W 91–88 OT | +8.0 | W+11.0 | 157.0 | O179 | 121.0 | 117.0 | 75.2 |
| Mar 12 | Washington | N | W 85–82 | −6.5 | L−3.5 | 156.5 | O167 | 128.5 | 124.0 | 66.2 |
| Mar 7 | #15Purdue | A | W 97–93 | +9.5 | W+13.5 | 154.0 | O190 | 147.6 | 141.5 | 65.7 |
| Mar 4 | Maryland | H | W 78–45 | −14.5 | W+18.5 | 153.5 | U123 | 135.0 | 77.9 | 57.8 |
| Feb 28 | Washington | A | W 90–73 | −2.5 | W+14.5 | 153.5 | O163 | 127.7 | 103.6 | 70.5 |
| Feb 25 | Oregon | A | L 71–85 | −5.5 | L−19.5 | 153.0 | O156 | 102.5 | 122.8 | 69.2 |
| Feb 22 | Iowa | H | W 84–71 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 147.0 | O155 | 130.5 | 110.3 | 64.4 |
| Feb 17 | Ohio State | A | L 69–86 | +1.0 | L−16.0 | 157.5 | U155 | 100.3 | 125.0 | 68.8 |
Seton Hall
Against the spread
Season
19-14
Home
6-11
Road
9-3
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +0.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
12-20-1
Home
5-11-1
Road
5-7
Last 10
4-5-1
avg vs total −3.0
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13 | #13St John's | A | L 68–78 | +8.0 | L−2.0 | 136.5 | O146 | 102.3 | 117.3 | 66.5 |
| Mar 12 | Creighton | N | W 72–61 | −3.0 | W+8.0 | 135.5 | U133 | 104.4 | 88.5 | 68.9 |
| Mar 6 | #18St John's | H | L 65–72 | +5.0 | L−2.0 | 137.0 | P137 | 101.3 | 112.3 | 64.1 |
| Mar 3 | Xavier | A | W 77–68 | −2.0 | W+7.0 | 144.5 | O145 | 121.4 | 107.2 | 63.4 |
| Feb 28 | #6UConn | A | L 67–71 | +13.0 | W+9.0 | 130.0 | O138 | 106.3 | 112.7 | 63.0 |
| Feb 21 | Georgetown | H | W 51–47 | −5.5 | L−1.5 | 136.0 | U98 | 80.8 | 74.4 | 63.1 |
| Feb 18 | DePaul | H | L 57–69 | −7.0 | L−19.0 | 129.0 | U126 | 88.0 | 106.6 | 64.7 |
| Feb 15 | Butler | A | W 63–56 | −4.0 | W+3.0 | 138.5 | U119 | 94.1 | 83.6 | 67.0 |
| Feb 11 | Providence | H | W 87–80 | −5.0 | W+2.0 | 150.5 | O167 | 127.1 | 116.8 | 68.5 |
| Feb 7 | Creighton | A | L 68–69 | +2.5 | W+1.5 | 138.5 | U137 | 102.0 | 103.5 | 66.7 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Tale of the tape
national rank toned left for away, right for homeWisconsinSeton Hall
Efficiency
118.0
108.3
105.0
99.8
69.2
66.9
—
—
Shooting
54.5%
47.6%
54.7%
48.3%
36.2%
30.5%
78.8%
72.3%
31.5%
35.3%
Ball control & glass
12.8%
16.7%
14.3%
21.5%
29.1%
35.6%
28.2%
31.9%
6.6%
9.4%
12.5%
8.7%
Style
52.1%
26.8%
36.2%
49.1%
12.9%
13.1%
57.3%
51.6%
28.3%
39.5%
Roster
2.59
3.21
6'8.3"
6'4.2"
68.1%
87.4%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputWisconsin
Returning minutes: 68.1%Returning production: 58.3%
Lost
- John Blackwell 32.8 mpg, 18.6 ppg · transferred to Duke
- Nick Boyd 32.0 mpg, 20.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Elijah Gray no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 68% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Seton Hall
Returning minutes: 87.4%Returning production: 88.5%
Lost
- Tajuan Simpkins 25.1 mpg, 9.7 ppg · transferred to Mississippi St
Added
- Patrick Suemnick no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 87% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.